Rakesh, The key problem I have with your approach, and I *hope* that at least some people on OPE share this concern, is that your procedure makes it effectively impossible to put what you see as Marx's logic into a format in which it can be tested for internal consistency. Popper described this kind of behaviour as the hallmark of a pseudo-science. While the philosophy of science has moved on a long way from Popper, his litmus test between a science and a non-science--that the former makes statements which can be falsified, whereas the latter makes it impossible to either verify or disconfirm itself--is still accepted. In other words, in the name of saving Marx from what you see as unjustified criticism, your approach effectively makes it impossible to make any criticism at all. I for one do not wish to "save" Marx in this fashion. Steve At 22:14 18/10/00 -0700, you wrote: >Duncan K Foley (dkf2@columbia.edu) >Mon, 15 Jan 1996 12:34:48 -0800 > > Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ] > Next message: glevy@acnet.pratt.edu: "[OPE-L:788] Re: More Digression" > Previous message: Iwao Kitamura: "[OPE-L:786] Re: Digression: >two qestions and a proposal" > > > >If you write down an explicitly disequilibrium model with time subscripts >differentiating commodities at different times, thus allowing for prices >of inputs and outputs to differ, one solution will be the equilibrium >prices where the inputs and outputs have the same (relative) prices. This >is also the easiest solution to analyze, and its existence is a good >indication that the equations make sense. As an historical aside, this >seems to be the approach Marx took, for example, in his work on >reproduction schemes. >_____________ >As I have tried to show in my previous post, this reference to >equilibrium prices in the reproduction schemes turns a justifiable >simpflying assumption (contant value) in the context of the analysis >of a circulation problem into a controlling methodological postulate >for all economic analysis. As I have already pointed out, Marx is >explicitly talking about why prices of production change in vol 3, >part 2: the first reason, a change in the general rate of profit, >manifests itself clearly only in the long run, leaving us to assume >that manifest shorter term changes in prices of production are caused >by changes in the values of the commodities themselves. There are >countless references to changes in productivity, making it >unbelievable that Marx had not abandoned the assumption of constant >value or unit prices. There is simply no methodological reason to >import the completely unrealistic, albeit simplfying, conditions from >vol 2 into volume 3. And if Marx's value-theoretic equations for r >and prices of production make no sense due to the misuse of >assumptions retained because they give us "the easiest solution to >analyze", why should we leave Marx's value theory vulnerable on such >(flimsy) grounds? > >Is it not possible to save honor all sides? There is indeed a >transformation problem in terms of the easiest solution to analyze >(equilibrium prices or simple reproduction); there need be no >transformation problem in conditions which pay the least respect to >reality, however more difficult these realistic conditions may be to >analyze. > >Would any other theory but a revolutionary critique of bourgeois >society be thought to have fatal logical problems if only the >introduction of reality was needed for it to make sense? > > >All the best, Rakesh > > Dr. Steve Keen Senior Lecturer Economics & Finance University of Western Sydney Macarthur Building 11 Room 30, Goldsmith Avenue, Campbelltown PO Box 555 Campbelltown NSW 2560 Australia s.keen@uws.edu.au 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683 Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088 Home Page: http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:10 EST